Ava Hernandez, M.A. joins Steve Wood, Ph.D to talk about her background and how she got started in the litigation consulting field. Ava shares how she spent the early part of her career working in law firms, including both plaintiff and defense firms, then got interested in psychology, went back to earn her Masters in Clinical Psychology, and then ended up at Courtroom Sciences as a Litigation Consultant. Ava talks about what type of cases she enjoys working on and why the application of psychology in litigation is so interesting to her. She shares how important it is for her to help people and her fascination with understanding why people think the way they do and believe so strongly in what they believe in. Ava and Steve talk about how they manage feedback from jurors that may seem nonsensical since those thoughts and comments do make sense to the person sharing their perspective. Lastly, Ava shares how her experience working with plaintiff attorneys gives her an advantage when working on the defense side. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/dEs

Holly Howanitz, Managing Partner, Tyson & Mendes joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to talk about cross-examination of expert witnesses. Holly highlights that you need think about your goals when cross-examining expert witnesses especially since experts often have more experience testifying than a fact witness. Bill and Holly talk about strategic decisions such as when to bring up "bombs" for the expert either at deposition or at trial and how to approach preparing for cross-examining an expert. Holly shares how she prepares for an arrogant expert or an expert that does primarily work for the plaintiff's side. Bill and Holly also talk about preparing experts for the defense and what that process is like. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/fO6

Kent Doll, Trial Attorney & Owner, KND Law joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to share his litigation philosophy, Bill and Kent discuss the difference between a trial attorney and a litigator. They discuss trial technology and Kent's approach to jury selection and how important it is to get jurors to open up and share so you can understand their biases and perspectives. Bill and Kent talk about opening statements and closings and Kent shares the advice he would give to attorneys in the early part of their career and thoughts on managing mental health in a highly stressful job.  Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/CMp

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. and Steve Wood, Ph.D. conclude our med mal litigation series by talking about trial preparation for medical malpractice cases. Steve and Bill discuss important tips about managing and preparing witnesses for trial testimony, working with witnesses as early as possible before trial, and helping them understand the difference between direct and cross examination and what to know if they are called adversely. They emphasize how important it is for witnesses to be completely familiar with their deposition testimony and to keep their responses to questions short so that jurors can follow along. Bill and Steve also talk about voir dire and misperceptions about what types of people make "good" jurors or "bad jurors" and how demographics or occupations are poor predictors of juror perspectives. Lastly, they discuss opening statements in med mal cases and how and why to leverage the cognitive lens in your opening statement.

Steve Wood, Ph.D. talks about preparing witnesses for trial testimony. Steve mentions several key tips including teaching witnesses to take their time when responding both during direct examination and cross-examination. It is important for witnesses to be consistent with how much time they are taking to answer both direct and cross questions so jurors don't perceive any discrepancy. Taking time in answering also helps jurors who are hearing the information for the first time and need time to process the questions and responses. Steve also highlights the need for witnesses to have short, concise answers. Long, wordy responses will be difficult for the jury to follow. Witnesses need to look at the jury when giving their answers but must do it in a way that is comfortable both for them and for the jurors. Steve stresses how critical it is to prepare witnesses for any documents they will be shown at trial. They need to be given time to review documents they may be shown and should re-read their deposition testimony as well. Lastly, Steve talks about some misperceptions about jury selection and specific types of jurors. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/zSB

Dr. Jordan Romano joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to discuss expert witness testimony in medical malpractice cases. Dr. Romano has served as an expert witness on numerous medical malpractice cases and talks about how he got started as an expert witness, how he got up to speed on the litigation process, and what he does as a hospitalist. Bill asks Dr. Romano about the differences between working as an expert for the plaintiff's side and the defense side and what advice he would give attorneys on what they can do better when working with experts. Dr. Romano also addresses the questions that he gets at deposition or trial about his compensation to serve as an expert witness. Lastly, Dr. Romano shares how he manages his testimony at trial when in teaching mode and when being attacked by opposing counsel. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/emk

Steve Wood, Ph.D. & Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. join host Ava Hernandez to talk about what they have been seeing in the cases they have been working on recently. Steve shares that he's been seeing more jurors who are expecting fact witnesses to remember all details from the incident and talks about how to address this issue. The group discuss the pros and cons of the legal strategy of withholding documents from witnesses or not showing witnesses videos or other documents prior to their deposition, in particular corporate reps. Bill shares an insight he recently heard from a successful plaintiff attorney: cases are win or lost in the first or second deposition. Steve, Bill, and Ava talk about how many witnesses get so upset about personal questions asked at deposition and how it needs to be handled. They also share a positive trend they have been seeing of more attorneys and clients doing early assessments on their cases, sometimes even before a suit is filed or before depositions have been scheduled. Lastly, they talk about seeing some encouraging signs of sharing and collaboration on the defense side and more of a focus on the mental health of witnesses. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/OID

Medical malpractice defense attorney Michael Denning of Heyl Royster joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to talk about the timeline of litigation in medical malpractice. First, Michael and Bill touch on the mental stress of being named in a lawsuit and the importance of making sure the physician or named defendant is doing okay and checking in on their mental health. They discuss the process of building trust with the defendant and issues that arise around finger pointing and defendants who are worried about their reputation if word gets out that they are being sued. Michael and Bill talk about preparing for deposition and how defendants are so often misinformed about what the purpose of their testimony is and how their deposition really needs to be prepared for and handled. They also discuss the challenge of working with foreign-born witnesses and how all witnesses must embrace their conduct and decisions. Lastly, Mike and Bill talk about the trial phase of litigation, the direction that needs to be given to defendants about what to expect at trial, and why they are a focal point for the jury even when they are not on the witness stand. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/F8L

Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. joins host Ava Hernandez to discuss his background and how he got into the litigation consulting industry. Ava and Bill talk about how their backgrounds in clinical psychology allow them to assess and prepare witnesses in a way that attorneys are not trained to. They also discuss the ethical challenges with the tension that can occur in working with witnesses, the emotional and mental issues that a witness may be dealing with and addressing their psychological wellness prior to witness prep. Lastly, Ava and Bill offer their insights on what they see in the future around litigation. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/PrO

Chuck Ingram, Partner with Estes, Ingram, Foels & Gibbs, P.A., joins Bill Kanasky, Jr., Ph.D. to talk about the discovery stage of medical malpractice litigation. Chuck discusses the importance being proactive during the discovery phase in med mal cases and how he approaches discovery differently based on which plaintiff firm has filed the suit. Bill and Chuck also talk about developing younger attorneys, managing co-defendants, strategies for admitting liability, the value of jury research, over-reliance on expert witnesses, and dealing with emotional nurse witnesses. Watch the video of this episode: https://www.courtroomsciences.com/r/Pgv